If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

MN Supreme Court throws out law against disorderly conduct at meetings

The Minnesota Supreme Court has tossed out a disorderly conduct law aimed at people who disrupt public meetings.

The Court ruled in the case of Robin Hensel, of Little Falls, who was cited for disorderly conduct after she moved her chairs closer to city councilors at a meeting, days after the Council rescheduled a meeting when Hensel displayed signs that depicted dead and deformed children, blocking the view of others in the audience.

She was convicted after a judge refused to allow her to enter a defense under the First Amendment.

“The Court has made clear that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired,” Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Ann Larkin ruled last year upholding the conviction.

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals, ruling the statute about disturbing public meetings is overly broad (See full opinion).

Here’s how the law reads:

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
. . .
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character . .

“An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech,” Justice David Stras wrote for the majority in today’s opinion.

This statute presents us with a “criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 474. It criminalizes a public speech that “criticize[s] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare.” It prohibits an individual from wearing a jacket containing an offensive inscription to a meeting. And certainly, it would forbid someone from burning the American flag on a public street.

In addition to being disruptive of gatherings of all kinds, all of these actions share a common quality: they are protected under the First Amendment. Due to the countless ways in which [the law] can prohibit and chill protected expression, we conclude that the statute facially violates the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine.

In a dissent joined by Chief Justice Lorei Gildea, Justice G. Barry Anderson said the court should have interpreted the statute more narrowly, rather than throwing it out.

In this case, he said, the court could have said the law targets conduct, not content.

Indeed, under the narrowing construction that I urge we adopt, many of the troubling applications of the statute the court mentions would no longer be criminalized.

For example, the court concludes that the disorderly conduct statute prohibits “criticiz[ing] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare,” which is protected under Terminiello v. City of Chicago. But the narrowed construction urged here limits the reach of the statute to conduct, not speech.

The court worries that the disorderly conduct statute criminalizes wearing a jacket with an offensive description, which is protected under Cohen v. California. But this, too, would be outside the reach of the statute as narrowly construed because, as the Supreme Court of the United States concluded, Cohen’s jacket was simply written speech, not conduct.

Stras agreed that would settle the First Amendment violations, but it would be unworkable.

A straightforward example illustrates the point. In this case, Hensel displayed signs with pictures of dead and deformed children during the first of the two Little Falls City Council meetings.

Suppose that the State had prosecuted Hensel solely because of her decision to display the controversial signs at the first meeting, not her later decision to sit in the area between the gallery and the dais during the second meeting.

Under such a scenario, the factfinder would need to disentangle whether the cause of the disruption was her decision to display the signs, which blocked the view of other members of the public, or the message on the signs, which contained graphic images. Yet in many cases, the answer is likely both, leaving the jury with the thorny task of attempting to differentiate between the two in a disorderly-conduct case.

Stras said Anderson and Gildea’s proposed solution constitutes a “shave-a-little-off-here and throw-in-a-few-words-there statute” that would bear little resemblance to the law the Legislature actually passed.

That’s a law that is now dead.

“We’re at a time in our history where our democratic norms and values are under attack and it’s critical that people be able to publicly dissent and hold their government accountable,” Hensel’s attorney, Kevin Riach, said. “This decision takes a tool away from those who would seek to squash that dissent.”

Last edited by Nordstern; September 14 2017 at 03:12:11 AM.

"Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm

MN Supreme Court throws out law against disorderly conduct at meetings

The Minnesota Supreme Court has tossed out a disorderly conduct law aimed at people who disrupt public meetings.

The Court ruled in the case of Robin Hensel, of Little Falls, who was cited for disorderly conduct after she moved her chairs closer to city councilors at a meeting, days after the Council rescheduled a meeting when Hensel displayed signs that depicted dead and deformed children, blocking the view of others in the audience.

She was convicted after a judge refused to allow her to enter a defense under the First Amendment.

“The Court has made clear that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired,” Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Ann Larkin ruled last year upholding the conviction.

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals, ruling the statute about disturbing public meetings is overly broad (See full opinion).

Here’s how the law reads:

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
. . .
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character . .

“An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech,” Justice David Stras wrote for the majority in today’s opinion.

This statute presents us with a “criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 474. It criminalizes a public speech that “criticize[s] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare.” It prohibits an individual from wearing a jacket containing an offensive inscription to a meeting. And certainly, it would forbid someone from burning the American flag on a public street.

In addition to being disruptive of gatherings of all kinds, all of these actions share a common quality: they are protected under the First Amendment. Due to the countless ways in which [the law] can prohibit and chill protected expression, we conclude that the statute facially violates the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine.

In a dissent joined by Chief Justice Lorei Gildea, Justice G. Barry Anderson said the court should have interpreted the statute more narrowly, rather than throwing it out.

In this case, he said, the court could have said the law targets conduct, not content.

Indeed, under the narrowing construction that I urge we adopt, many of the troubling applications of the statute the court mentions would no longer be criminalized.

For example, the court concludes that the disorderly conduct statute prohibits “criticiz[ing] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare,” which is protected under Terminiello v. City of Chicago. But the narrowed construction urged here limits the reach of the statute to conduct, not speech.

The court worries that the disorderly conduct statute criminalizes wearing a jacket with an offensive description, which is protected under Cohen v. California. But this, too, would be outside the reach of the statute as narrowly construed because, as the Supreme Court of the United States concluded, Cohen’s jacket was simply written speech, not conduct.

Stras agreed that would settle the First Amendment violations, but it would be unworkable.

A straightforward example illustrates the point. In this case, Hensel displayed signs with pictures of dead and deformed children during the first of the two Little Falls City Council meetings.

Suppose that the State had prosecuted Hensel solely because of her decision to display the controversial signs at the first meeting, not her later decision to sit in the area between the gallery and the dais during the second meeting.

Under such a scenario, the factfinder would need to disentangle whether the cause of the disruption was her decision to display the signs, which blocked the view of other members of the public, or the message on the signs, which contained graphic images. Yet in many cases, the answer is likely both, leaving the jury with the thorny task of attempting to differentiate between the two in a disorderly-conduct case.

Stras said Anderson and Gildea’s proposed solution constitutes a “shave-a-little-off-here and throw-in-a-few-words-there statute” that would bear little resemblance to the law the Legislature actually passed.

That’s a law that is now dead.

“We’re at a time in our history where our democratic norms and values are under attack and it’s critical that people be able to publicly dissent and hold their government accountable,” Hensel’s attorney, Kevin Riach, said. “This decision takes a tool away from those who would seek to squash that dissent.”

The US edumacation system took a sharp nosedive early in the millenium with "no child left behind" which meant schools that didn't focus on standardize testing would lose their funding. I learned civics in the '80s, but I don't think it is much of a focus anymore.

"Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang

A judge has ordered the jailing of ex-pharmaceutical chief executive Martin "Pharma Bro" Shkreli while he awaits sentencing for securities fraud.

Judge Kiyo Matsumoto said a Facebook post in which Shkreli offered $5,000 for a strand of Hillary Clinton's hair showed he was a danger to the public.

On Wednesday, Judge Matsumoto ruled that Shkreli's post on 4 September - made shortly before Mrs Clinton began a book tour - showed he posed a danger, rejecting arguments his words were protected by US free speech laws.

Shkreli - who has clashed frequently with critics on social media - had argued that the since-deleted post amounted to satire, and had been a reference to DNA sequencing.

"This is a solicitation of assault in exchange for money," the judge said. "That is not protected by the First Amendment."

A judge has ordered the jailing of ex-pharmaceutical chief executive Martin "Pharma Bro" Shkreli while he awaits sentencing for securities fraud.

Judge Kiyo Matsumoto said a Facebook post in which Shkreli offered $5,000 for a strand of Hillary Clinton's hair showed he was a danger to the public.

On Wednesday, Judge Matsumoto ruled that Shkreli's post on 4 September - made shortly before Mrs Clinton began a book tour - showed he posed a danger, rejecting arguments his words were protected by US free speech laws.

Shkreli - who has clashed frequently with critics on social media - had argued that the since-deleted post amounted to satire, and had been a reference to DNA sequencing.

"This is a solicitation of assault in exchange for money," the judge said. "That is not protected by the First Amendment."

Clinton campaign memoir includes a questionable interpretation of the central lesson of George Orwell's novel "1984."

Winston Smith was the villain, the authorities the heros.

Lol, wtf.

The excerpt in question from the article, for the lazy:

“Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, ex-perts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves. For Trump, as with so much he does, it’s about simple dominance.”

It is a pretty tortured attempt to draw parallels to the battle cry of Fake News, as it is used as a bludgeon by Trump et al. The supposition is that the victim retains his knowledge of objective reality, and completely misses the point of constructing parallel, diametrically opposed truths in order to subjugate the individuals mind. Winston doesnt just call it five fingers, he doesnt just re-define the word five to mean four, he genuinely is made to see five just because Big Brother tells him there are five.

Ill hope that she just had a shit ghostwriter, theres scores of better analogies that could have been drawn to make the point. It shows a basic lack of understanding in why the right-wing media is so effective.

It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.

More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.

Posts

2,322

Originally Posted by Smuggo

It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.

It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.

Too bad they still lost :^)

Did they?

Looks to me like the far left has solidified their internal control of the party, positioned themselves excellently for the next election and avoided being held responsible for the hot mess that is Brexit.

Two years ago the far left was a joke. Now I can easily see them dominating politics for a decade after the Tories finish committing suicide.

It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.

Too bad they still lost :^)

Did they?

Looks to me like the far left has solidified their internal control of the party, positioned themselves excellently for the next election and avoided being held responsible for the hot mess that is Brexit.

Two years ago the far left was a joke. Now I can easily see them dominating politics for a decade after the Tories finish committing suicide.

More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.

Posts

2,322

Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot

Originally Posted by XenosisMk4

Originally Posted by Smuggo

It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.

Too bad they still lost :^)

Did they?

Looks to me like the far left has solidified their internal control of the party, positioned themselves excellently for the next election and avoided being held responsible for the hot mess that is Brexit.

Two years ago the far left was a joke. Now I can easily see them dominating politics for a decade after the Tories finish committing suicide.

It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.

Too bad they still lost :^)

Did they?

Looks to me like the far left has solidified their internal control of the party, positioned themselves excellently for the next election and avoided being held responsible for the hot mess that is Brexit.

Two years ago the far left was a joke. Now I can easily see them dominating politics for a decade after the Tories finish committing suicide.